ML13219A038: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:Poehler, Jeffrey 1( | {{#Wiki_filter:Poehler, Jeffrey 1(1 From: Poehler, Jeffrey i C.Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:57 AM To: Purtscher, Patrick | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Thanks, Jeffrey C. Poehler Sr. Materials Engineer NRR/DE/EVIB (301) 415-8353 From: Purtscher, Patrick Sent: Wednesday, Februarý1, 2012 9:57 AM To: Poehler, Jeffrey | |||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Thanks,Jeffrey C. | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)I think the rewording is appropriate. | RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)I think the rewording is appropriate. | ||
I don't have any other issues. | I don't have any other issues.Pat From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:54 AM To: Purtscher, Patrick Cc: Cheruvenki, Ganesh | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Any comments on my changes?Jeffrey C. Poehler Sr. Materials Engineer NRR/DE/EVIB (301) 415-8353 From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 3:34 PM To: Purtscher, Patrick | |||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Any comments on my changes?Jeffrey C. | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Pat, the whole 15' paragraph of Section 3.2.1 could be clearer. I reworded this paragraph to eliminate some unnecessary details.I fixed footnote 2.For Figure H-7, I agree that the lower bound could be higher at 0.1 dpa especially if you only considered the data points that are Type 304. However, I'm not sure if the 75% would work with the stress analysis for VYNPS since they determined 14% relaxation. | |||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Pat, the whole 15' paragraph of Section 3.2.1 could be clearer. | The stress analysis only showed 13% margin over the ASME Code allowable for some scenarios. | ||
I reworded this paragraph to eliminate | I'm not sure an additional 11% of preload reduction would result in a one-to-one reduction in the percent margin, but would definitely reduce it. At any rate, Figure H-7 is just one data point supporting VYNPS's estimate. | ||
The stress analysis only showed 13% margin over the | If you look at the GEH curve, it is also a best-estimate curve.10aI Please review the changes which are marked up in the attached revision.Thanks, Jeff From: Purtscher, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 1:53 PM To: Poehler, Jeffrey | ||
I'm not sure an additional 11% of preload reduction would result in a one-to-one reduction in the percent margin, but would definitely reduce it. At any rate, Figure H-7 is just one | |||
If you look at the GEH curve, it is also a best-estimate curve.10aI Please review the changes which are marked up in the attached revision. | |||
Thanks, | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Jeff, The 3 rd sentence in Section 3.2.1 doesn't seem clear enough for the reader, I think it needs rewording. | |||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Jeff,The | Footnote 2, don't you mean displacement per atom?Regarding Figure H-7 from MRP-175, I looked at it and I think 75% is a realistic lower bound, still better than the 50% line that is drawn, but more relaxation than the mean value. Would that 25% relaxation be a problem based on what we know?Pat From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:25 AM To: Cheruvenki, Ganesh Cc: Purtscher, Patrick | ||
Footnote 2, don't you mean displacement per atom?Regarding Figure H-7 from MRP-175, I looked at it and I think 75% is a realistic lower bound, still better | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Did you guys have time to comment?From: Cheruvenki, Ganesh Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:07 PM To: Poehler, Jeffrey | |||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Did you guys have time to comment?From: Cheruvenki, | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Will do.From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:45 AM To: Cheruvenki, Ganesh Cc: Purtscher, Patrick | |||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Will do.From: Poehler, | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Ganesh, As discussed yesterday, please peer review (technical only) my SE input for Vermont Yankee. Use TAC ME6248. Note that it is not a complete SE because Pani has the lead on the SE. He can integrate my inputs into the structure of his SE.If you can give me comments by the end of the week that would be fine.Pat, I copied you so if you have time to review your comments would also be appreciated. | |||
Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Ganesh,As discussed yesterday, please peer review (technical only) my SE input for Vermont Yankee. Use | |||
11}} | 11}} |
Revision as of 02:37, 14 July 2018
ML13219A038 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Vermont Yankee ![]() |
Issue date: | 02/15/2012 |
From: | Poehler J C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
To: | Purtscher P T NRC/NRR/DE/EVIB |
References | |
FOIA/PA-2013-0139 | |
Download: ML13219A038 (2) | |
Text
Poehler, Jeffrey 1(1 From: Poehler, Jeffrey i C.Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:57 AM To: Purtscher, Patrick
Subject:
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Thanks, Jeffrey C. Poehler Sr. Materials Engineer NRR/DE/EVIB (301) 415-8353 From: Purtscher, Patrick Sent: Wednesday, Februarý1, 2012 9:57 AM To: Poehler, Jeffrey
Subject:
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)I think the rewording is appropriate.
I don't have any other issues.Pat From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:54 AM To: Purtscher, Patrick Cc: Cheruvenki, Ganesh
Subject:
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Any comments on my changes?Jeffrey C. Poehler Sr. Materials Engineer NRR/DE/EVIB (301) 415-8353 From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 3:34 PM To: Purtscher, Patrick
Subject:
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Pat, the whole 15' paragraph of Section 3.2.1 could be clearer. I reworded this paragraph to eliminate some unnecessary details.I fixed footnote 2.For Figure H-7, I agree that the lower bound could be higher at 0.1 dpa especially if you only considered the data points that are Type 304. However, I'm not sure if the 75% would work with the stress analysis for VYNPS since they determined 14% relaxation.
The stress analysis only showed 13% margin over the ASME Code allowable for some scenarios.
I'm not sure an additional 11% of preload reduction would result in a one-to-one reduction in the percent margin, but would definitely reduce it. At any rate, Figure H-7 is just one data point supporting VYNPS's estimate.
If you look at the GEH curve, it is also a best-estimate curve.10aI Please review the changes which are marked up in the attached revision.Thanks, Jeff From: Purtscher, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 1:53 PM To: Poehler, Jeffrey
Subject:
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Jeff, The 3 rd sentence in Section 3.2.1 doesn't seem clear enough for the reader, I think it needs rewording.
Footnote 2, don't you mean displacement per atom?Regarding Figure H-7 from MRP-175, I looked at it and I think 75% is a realistic lower bound, still better than the 50% line that is drawn, but more relaxation than the mean value. Would that 25% relaxation be a problem based on what we know?Pat From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:25 AM To: Cheruvenki, Ganesh Cc: Purtscher, Patrick
Subject:
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Did you guys have time to comment?From: Cheruvenki, Ganesh Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:07 PM To: Poehler, Jeffrey
Subject:
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Will do.From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:45 AM To: Cheruvenki, Ganesh Cc: Purtscher, Patrick
Subject:
Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Ganesh, As discussed yesterday, please peer review (technical only) my SE input for Vermont Yankee. Use TAC ME6248. Note that it is not a complete SE because Pani has the lead on the SE. He can integrate my inputs into the structure of his SE.If you can give me comments by the end of the week that would be fine.Pat, I copied you so if you have time to review your comments would also be appreciated.
11